Dismissed

Anjana.C.Y v. Central Council of Indian Medicine

Kerala HC28 Sept 2016WP(C)/873/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged strict attendance regulations for second professional BAMS examinations. The Court held that since the 2016 Regulations were not notified in the gazette, the earlier 2012 Regulations applied. The Court refused to dilute statutory academic rules or direct a different examination method.

What did the court decide?

Reliefs sought in writ petitions dismissed; petitioners directed to approach 1st Respondent for implementation of 2016 Regulations.

Anjana.C.Y Vs Central Council of Indian Medicine — Education and Admissions | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2016/6TH ASWINA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 873 of 2016 (H)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

¶8

ANJANA. C.Y.,

¶9

CHAITHRAM, CHERIYOLA, ALUMMOODU P.O., KOLLAM, REGISTER NO.130030277.

¶10

ASHIN P.S.,

¶11

¶12

PAKKATH (H), KOORKENCHERRY, THRISSUR, REGISTER NO.130030286.

¶13

BUSHRA. P.,

¶14

¶15

PARAKKATTIL, RANDATHANI P.O., POOVANCHIRA, MALAPPURAM, REGISTER NO.130030291.

¶16

¶17

NAHLA T.M.,

¶18

THATTUPURACKAL, KOTTUKULANGARA, ERUVA P.O., KAYAMKULAM, REGISTER NO.130030306.

¶19

NAVNEETA VINOD,

¶20

¶21

KEERTHI, SHANKARAMANGALAM P.O., PATTAMBI, REGISTER NO.130030307.

¶22

¶23

NAVEEN P.M.,

¶24

PARATTUPARAMBIL, NARAYANAMANGALAM,

¶25

PULLOOT P.O., KODUNGALLOOR, REGISTER NO.130030308.

¶26

SAMEER T.P.,

¶27

¶28

THARAMMAL PARAMBIL, MEENADATHOOR P.O., MALAPPURAM, REGISTER NO.130030313.

¶29

BY ADV. SRI.B.S.SIVAJI.

¶30

RESPONDENT(S):

¶31

1. CENTRAL COUNCIL OF INDIAN MEDICINE, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, 61-65, INSTITUTIONAL AREA, JANAKPURI D BLOCK, NEW DELHI- 110 058.

¶32

WP(C).No. 873 of 2016 (H)

¶33

2. KERALA UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTER, MULANKUNNATHUKAVU, THRISSUR-680 596.

¶34

3. THE PRINCIPAL, VAIDYARETNAM AYURVEDA COLLEGE, THRISSUR -680 001.

¶35

R2 BY ADV. SRI.P.SREEKUMAR, SC. R3 BY ADVS. SRI.P.SANJAY, SMT.A.PARVATHI MENON, SRI.SUSEEL M.MENON.

¶36

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28-09-2016, ALONG WITH WP(C). NO. 3789 OF 2016 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶37

rs.

¶38

WP(C).No. 873 of 2016 (H)

¶39

APPENDIX

¶40

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:-

¶41

P1A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE REGULATIONS ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶42

P2A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE REGULATIONS ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶43

P3A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE REGULATIONS ON GRADUATE AYURVEDA MEDICAL EDUCATION, 2015.

¶44

P4A TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST DATED 06.11.2015 SUBMITTED TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶45

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:- NIL.

//TRUE COPY//

P.S. TO JUDGE

rs.

A.M.SHAFFIQUE, J.

¶50

W.P.(C).Nos.873, 3789, 3790, 3791, 3796, 3797, 3799, 3824, 7141, 8815, 8888, 8932, 8933, 9244, 9245, 9271, 10519, 10525, 10528, 10542, 10554, 10555, 10566, 10924, 10926, 11606, 12456, 12931, 12932, 14542, 14570, 14633, 30307, 30314, 30361, 30608 & 30632 of 2016

¶51

----------------------------------- Dated this the 28^th day of September, 2016

¶52

J U D G M E N T

¶53

These writ petitions are filed mainly projecting a common issue. Petitioners are students of BAMS (Bachelor of Ayurvedic Medicine and Surgery) course in various colleges coming under the Kerala University of Health Sciences. The controversy is regarding the regulations by which the students could appear for the second professional course as well as the second year professional examination.

¶54

It is not in dispute that as per the notification dated 25.04.2012 issued by the Central Council of Indian Medicine, a student who had failed in more than two subjects will not be permitted to attend the second year professional course. Those students who failed in one or two subjects alone will be permitted to attend classes of second year. However, he/she will not be allowed to appear for second professional examination unless he/she passes in all the subjects of the first professional in the supplementary examinations. The Regulation issued by the Central Council has been adopted by the Kerala University of Health Sciences also. The contention of the petitioners is that on the basis of representations made by the students, the Central Council of Indian Medicine had

¶55

¶56

W.P.(C).No.873 and connected cases

¶57

prepared a Regulation known as Indian Medicine Central Council Regulations on Graduate Ayurveda Medical Education, 2016 by which certain modification had been made which enable the students to continue the course. Clause 7.9 in Ext.P3 is the relevant clause which reads as under :

¶58

“7.9 The failed student of first Professional shall be allowed to appear in second Professional examination but the student shall not be allowed to appear in third Professional examination unless the student passes all the subjects of first Professional examination and maximum four chances shall be given to pass first Professional examination within a period of maximum three years. Partial attendance of examination in any subject shall be counted as an attempt.”

¶59

It is submitted that the Central Government having approved the aforesaid Regulations, there is delay on the part of the Central Council in notifying the same by way of publication in the official gazette. As a result of which, the students are put to serious hardship. They are either unable to continue the course or unable to write the examination merely for the reason that they have not passed in all the papers in the first year examination or for the reason that they have failed in more than two subjects. Yet another contention had been urged in W.P.(C).No.30361/2016, wherein the students complained that they have been permitted to attend second year classes and write the supplementary examinations and even after having passed in all the subjects during the

¶60

¶61

W.P.(C).No.873 and connected cases

¶62

supplementary examination, they are not permitted to write the second year examination.

¶63

Statement/counter affidavit has been filed by respondents 1 and 2 in a few cases. According to the 1^st respondent, the Regulation 2016 has not been notified so far in the gazette and therefore none can rely upon the same. As matter stands now the 2012 Regulations holds the field and unless a student passes in all the subjects in the first year examination, he cannot be permitted to write the second year examination. Only those students who had failed in not more than two subjects alone are permitted to attend the second year and continue the course.

¶64

Learned standing counsel appearing for the University also submits that these are all instances where most of the students have failed in more than two subjects and therefore, under normal circumstances they are not permitted to attend the classes. However, there is some delay in publication of the results. It may take one or two months and in the meantime all the students are permitted to attend the classes. Once their results are published, those students who had failed in more than two subjects are permitted to write the supplementary examination and supplementary classes are being conducted by the college as well. However, even they have passed in the supplementary examination, they cannot write the second year examination since there will be deficiency in attendance. Their attendance until the declaration of

¶65

W.P.(C).No.873 and connected cases

¶66

¶67

result will not be counted as sufficient for attending the second year examination.

¶68

Having regard to the fact that the 2016 Regulations have not been brought into force, I don't think that the petitioners are entitled to make any claim on that basis. The fact remains that the 2012 Regulations are in force and all the petitioners are bound by the said Regulations. I don't think that in academic matters this Court can dilute the statutory regulations and direct a different method for the conduct of courses. This is not an individual case where this Court could exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 to make some modifications, if on facts there is some arbitrariness on the part of the University or the colleges as the case may be. This is a case which applies to the entire course which are being conducted by the University and the respective colleges based on certain set up Rules. Insofar as there is no ambiguity in the rules, I don't think that a different view can be taken in the matter. Accordingly, I don't think that the petitioners are entitled for any reliefs sought in these writ petitions.

¶69

These writ petitions are, therefore, dismissed. It is made clear that nothing prevents the petitioners to approach the 1^st respondent for implementation of the 2016 Regulations.

¶70

Sd/-

¶71

A.M.SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE.

¶72

Anjana.C.Y v. Central Council of Indian Medicine

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anjana.C.Y v. Central Council of Indian Medicine

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Justin Raj Vs State Bank of India

M/S.Safa Plywood Pvt.Ltd. Vs the Kerala State Electricity Board

State Bank of India Vs Shanmugham P.N.

Manoj Stephen Vs the Branch Manager, State Bank of India

Dr.K.Sangeetha Vs the Principal

Bindu Unnikrishnan Vs the Federal Bank Ltd.